MM's win pending crank inspection

let's do this, i mang

 

Who said it was a crank what if the crank wasnt really a crank and it was a rock and a rock isnt a rock it is a crank.But with a crank being a crank then a rock is a rock. Then yosh used a cheater rock therefore they didnt cheat cause the rule book doesnt cover cheater rocks. So if chewbacca is a wookie and a wookie is chewbacca that just doesnt make sense so if the glove dont fit you must acquit. Wheres Johnny Cochran when you need him.

 

Why do you give a shit? You admit that Yosh cheated, but you have your panties in a bunch because you don't like the fact that the AMA followed their rulebook, EXACTLY, and continue to claim that they didn't follow "the process". What fookin process are you talking about? They followed the rulebook, EXACTLY.

Only people like you don't get it. Yosh cheated, they got caught. End of story. Why you're turning this around on the AMA makes absolutely no sense, if what you admit is true then even if a board was convened Yosh would still have been found to be cheating. What's so hard to understand about that?

Absurd. They were trying to pull a bullshit case of "we're innocent" knowing all the while that they got caught cheating. Yosh knows exactly why it was denied, they know they cheated. If you think that the part got in there by accident, or it was really some goofy production part that is in real production bikes then you need to puff, puff.... pass. "How can we make this go away" isn't something that someone who isn't admitting cheating says.

Read Papa's last few posts in this thread, then put on your thinking cap.

 

I see, so basically you're stating that people are NOT entitled to their "day in court?" Just because this is a clear cut case of cheating, you're OK with AMA being almost completely autocratic in the matter? Just because, "they would have been guilty anyway," what's the point in a hearing? Listen to yourself, is that really what you want to say? What is the point of an appeal process if it is not even used? It reminds of the mock-trials in the USSR. Let me ask you, do you think that they should do away with the appeals process entirely? After all, if AMA believes that they are guilty, and that would be the outcome anyway, then what is the point??? People like you sit around cheering while the wool is pulled over your eyes.

And AMA did NOT follow their own rule book EXACTLY, as you claim. First, if they did, then why is it a Category 1 violation? THEIR RULEBOOK specifically states that CATEGORY 1 violations are reserved for performance enhancing modifications that are illegal, yet AMA PUBLICLY STATED that they took no position on whether or not the modification was performance enhancing. Even if that's what they believe, why did they not just simply state then, "Because of the chamfer, the coloration, and the texture, we believe this crank to have been modified in a way that increases reliability, which is a form of performance enhancement, and therefore it is a Category 1 violation and the #6 bike is DQ's from both races." ??? Instead, AMA's entire justification was that Yosh "used a non-homologated part." They even stated that they took no position on whether or not it was performance enhancing...so why a Category 1 instead of Category 2 violation?

Second, they reserve the right to summarily dismiss appeals, "in the interest of deterring frivolous appeals..." Does an appeal where 2 victories and the championship are on the line sound frivolous? They stated that it was, "without merit," meaning that the appeal was denied on the grounds of its arguments, not because the appeal itself was frivolous.

So NO, AMA DID NOT follow the rulebook EXACTLY, as you state. If they did, then this wouldn't be an issue right now between anyone except Mladin and his team when he asked them why they used that part in his bike. Instead, half of the public is questioning whether or not Yosh was treated fairly, which is not good for the sport.

I'm not trying to turn this around on AMA - All I'm saying is that they wasted a golden opportunity and instead made themselves look like sh*t in the process and damaged their's and the sport's integrity in the eyes of the public.

 

Jesus, dude, then WTF is the provision for dismissing an appeal without merit doing in the rulebook? Under what circumstances do you feel that provision should ever be invoked? Like, never?

And, JIC you missed it, for the 800th time, the level of the infraction is up to the discretion of the AMA. RTFRB.

 

If an appeal with the outcome of two races and the championship on the line doesn't merit consideration, what does?

No, I didn't miss that, but you were the one who stated that they followed their own rulebook EXACTLY - how is that following it exactly? They state that a Cat 1 violation is THIS and a CAT 2 violation is THAT...then they say, "Yosh, we busted you for something that would fall under CAT2, but we're going to administer CAT1 penalties and not tell you why." How is that following the rulebook EXACTLY? They rulebook states, "AMA determines, at its sole discretion, into which category the offense falls:..." Then it goes on to define the categories, with CAT 1 being CLEARLY FOR Perf Enh and CAT 2 being CLEARLY FOR "All other equipment violations." Then, they publicly state that the reason for the DQ is that the part is not homologated. How the f*ck is that following their own rulebook exactly?

So in what situation should a team feel compelled to ask AMA why it was a Cat 1 and not a Cat 2 violation...never?

I love how you read a line or two of the rulebook independently (or, more likely, read it from someone else's post here), and then decide that that line is a catch-all provision for AMA officials. In fact, it's not. Read the entire section of the rulebook in question, and you will see in context that AMA did NOT follow their own rulebook exactly, as you claim.

Would saying, "We penalize Yosh because their part was performance enhancing and therefore we are issuing a Cat1 violation penalty..." have been so difficult for them?

 

Timestamps indicates that posts were made in this thread during the US GP. I got one word for that: LOOZERZ!

 

We get lots of commercials but there were some posts too long even for our bullshit commercial breaks.

 

I don't know, why don't you tell me since you're the one who has your panties so knotted over the AMA's decision to invoke the discretion that is clearly permitted in the rulebook.

Nice accusation, sounds like you're grasping at straws now and trying to discredit my knowledge, the last resort of someone desperate to prove his point. I know the rulebook pretty well from my own personal experience working with an AMA rider, I don't need you or anyone else to lecture me on what it contains. If you go back a few posts you'll see where I quoted the exact procedure from the rulebook. Step 3 is to review the appeal, and one of two things can then happen. Deny the appeal, or proceed to step 4, a hearing before an appeal board. You just won't admit that is the procedure, CLEARLY specified by the rulebook.

It's none of your business or mine why the AMA used their discretion regarding the severity of the penalty. Absolutely none, that's between the AMA and the appellant. Whine, piss and moan all you want, it's none of your business.

 

I am still offering my bike.just checked my vin and compared to one in yosh appeal.it is match,same numbers.
I would think if they pulled crank out of that bike few vins around should have same crank

 

Yeah, as luck would have it Tommy's VIN must be very close to Mat's.

 

I got theory on chamfer
difference between 1mm deep chamfer and 2mm deep chamfer is in amount of material.
1mm chamfer leaves more material around hole and makes it stronger

 

LMAO! aint no freakin way that bitch is legal, lmao! Produce one bike that has that crank in it, and I'll say uncle. 1 bike that has never had the engine removed in it, sealed straight from the factory. These people can find a crank out of a warranty bike, but can't find a bike. How the hell did they do that, I guess someone was looking on the warranty shelves and just happened to see one. LMAO!

 

IT WAS A KIT CRANK

They provide a letter from Falicon, A MAKER OF KIT CRANKS, to defend them.

 

Hey, that large print stuff is cool. :up:

 

If it weren't some sort of performance enhancement(directly or otherwise) then why use a special crank.

Sounds like the damn Boston people last year when the Patriots got spanked for videotaping opponents' practices. If it didn't gain you anything then why take the chance.

 

unfortunately they did opposite.proved that crank has never seen production line